Should the Government Track Your Movements?

 

Should the Government Track Your Movements?

by A. Barton Hinkle

Reason.com Full Feed / 2016-12-28 11:00

If you are walking down a public street, should you expect people not to see you? Of course not. But suppose someone decides to follow you—and to make records noting the time and place of your movements. Is that the same thing as simply noticing you happen to be out and about? No. Most people would agree the second case differs from the first.

Yet a Fairfax judge unfortunately failed to pick up on that distinction recently when he ruled in favor of the county's use of license plate readers. Fairfax's police department uses automated license plate readers that can scan 3,600 plates per minute. The county compares the plates to a hot list of stolen cars and other vehicles that might have been involved in a crime. It also stores the image of every plate, along with the date, time and location of each plate recording, for 364 days.

Three years ago Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) issued an opinion informing law enforcement agencies around the state that such activity is impermissible. It's one thing to use the cameras to hunt down a specific vehicle. It's another thing entirely to hoover up data about countless ordinary citizens going about their daily business, and then keep it indefinitely. The use of license-plate readers during an immediate threat to public safety is acceptable, Cuccinelli said, but their passive use during routine patrols is not, and neither is the practice of storing data from them. The need for collecting the information should be established before they are used, he wrote.

Some police departments took heed of Cuccinelli's opinion. Others ignored the AG's advice completely. Fairfax was one of them. Harrison Neal, a resident whose license plate showed up in the county's database, challenged the county's policy on privacy grounds. Last month Fairfax Circuit Court judge Robert Smith issued a summary judgment in the county's favor. The Virginia Supreme Court will soon decide whether to review the matter. It certainly should.

Smith's reasoning is straightforward: License plates are not personal information. Plate numbers are not listed among other forms of personal data in the state's Government Data Collection and Dissemination Act. What's more, while other forms of information listed in the act—such as Social Security numbers—refer back to an individual, "a license plate number leads directly to a motor vehicle and nothing more." Other government data can tell you who owns the vehicle, but "a license plate does not tell the researcher where the person is, what the person is doing, or anything else about the person."

Well now. If that is true, then it negates the whole point of using license-plate readers. Such readers apparently would be worthless, except for once in a long while when they note the recent location of a stolen car. In cost-benefit terms, they would seem like a colossal waste, because LPRs cost around $20,000—each.

The police seem to agree that license-plate readers collect personal information, too. As Arlington Police Chief Douglas Scott said in response to Cuccinelli's advisory, "if we were limited by the Attorney General's opinion, (LPRs) wouldn't be worth the investment. To simply use (them) only for a stolen-auto hit ... kind of defeats the investigative purpose and the opportunity to have something like that."

Indeed. License plate readers have an "investigative purpose" precisely because they do not simply note license plates and nothing more. They also record location in time and space. And since most people usually drive their own cars, that means LPRs enable the government to track and record a person's movements. The vast majority of the time, agencies do so without any apparent justification. In one comparable case in California, more than 99 percent of the plates recorded in a database belonged to vehicles unconnected to any crime.

License plate readers that provided the authorities with no personal information would be pointless, because cars don't commit crimes; only people do. So one of two things seems to be true about license plate readers. Either they do not record any personal information, in which case they are worthless as a crime-fighting tool. Or they do record personal information—about tens of thousands of people who are not criminals, without any reasonable grounds for suspicion.

In short, they are either useless or they are an invasion of privacy. Which is it?

--

Study Suggests Legalizing Pot Increases Adolescent Use, Except When It Doesn't

 

Study Suggests Legalizing Pot Increases Adolescent Use, Except When It Doesn't

by Jacob Sullum

Reason.com Full Feed / 2016-12-28 09:04

A new analysis of survey data finds that marijuana legalization was associated with more cannabis consumption among eighth- and 10th-graders in Washington but not among 12th-graders in that state or among Colorado students in any of those three grades. The study, published yesterday by JAMA Pediatrics, thus provides ammunition to both sides in the debate about how legalizing marijuana for adults affects adolescent use.

Voters in Colorado and Washington approved marijuana legalization in November 2012. Using data from the Monitoring the Future Study, U.C.-Davis epidemiologist Magdalena Cerdá and her colleagues looked at risk perceptions and past-month marijuana consumption in the three years preceding legalization (2010-12) and the three years following legalization (2013-15). They compared trends in Colorado and Washington to trends in the 45 continguous states that did not legalize marijuana for recreational use during this period. They found no significant differences in Colorado or among high school seniors in Washington. But eighth- and 10th-graders in Washington deviated significantly from the national trends in risk perceptions and marijuana use.

In Washington the share of students who said occasional marijuana use poses a great or moderate risk (a dubious claim) fell from 74.9 percent to 60.7 percent among eighth-graders and from 62.8 percent to 46.6 percent among 10th-graders. Those changes were more than twice as big as the average drops in the 45 comparison states. Past-month marijuana use by eighth-graders did not rise significantly in Washington, but it fell significantly in the other states. The prevalence of past-month marijuana use among 10th-graders did rise significantly in Washington, from 16.2 percent to 20.3 percent, while falling in the rest of the country.

Assuming that the deviations among eighth- and 10th-graders in Washington have something to do with legalization, Cerdá et al. say, the mechanism is unlikely to be diversion from legal buyers, since state-licensed marijuana stores did not open in that state until July 2014, halfway through the post-legalization study period. But they argue that legalization may have changed attitudes toward marijuana in a way that encouraged adolescent use. "Our findings suggest that legalization of recreational marijuana use in 2012 reduced stigma and perceptions of risk associated with marijuana use," the researchers write. "A shift in social norms regarding marijuana use may have, in turn, increased marijuana use among adolescents in Washington." They suggest that older students' attitudes were unaffected because they were already well-formed.

As for why there is no evidence of this phenomenon in Colorado, Cerdá et al. note that the medical marijuana industry had a firmer legal basis there than in Washington prior to 2013, which may have made it more visible and more likely to shape teenagers' views of the drug. "Colorado had a very developed medical marijuana dispensary system prior to legalization, with substantial advertising, to which youth were already exposed," they write. "Washington, on the other hand, did not provide legal protection to medical marijuana stores. Therefore, the degree of commercialization and advertising of these collectives was substantially lower than in Colorado."

That explanation seems pretty speculative, especially since Cerdá et al. note that medical marijuana laws are not associated with increases in adolescent marijuana use. In fact, they make a point of comparing Colorado and Washington to states that allow only medical use and find differences similar to those identified in the broader analysis, "indicating that the effects we found are specific to legislation permitting recreational use." It is plausible that legalizing marijuana for recreational use would have a bigger effect on adolescent attitudes and behavior than legalizing it for medical use does. But it seems suspiciously convenient that in Colorado, the state where recreational retailers have been operating the longest, the opposite is supposedly true.

It is also worth noting that Colorado, the state where Cerdá et al. found no significant change in adolescent marijuana use, is the example that prohibitionists preferred to cite until recently, based on data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). That survey measured an increase in marijuana use by teenagers after legalization in Colorado, but the change was not statistically significant. The latest NSDUH numbers indicate that marijuana use by Colorado teenagers declined after state-licensed marijuana retailers began serving recreational customers. According to NSDUH, adolescent marijuana use also fell in Washington during that period.

Judge Tosses Charges Against Backpage Execs, Tells Kamala Harris To Take It Up With Congress

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161210/09440536242/judge-tosses-charges-against-backpage-execs-tells-kamala-harris-to-take-it-up-with-congress.shtml

California judge Michael Bowman hinted -- with a tentative ruling issued last month -- that he didn't think much of Attorney General (now US Senator)[ ಠ_ಠ ] Kamala Harris' grandstanding, misguided, First Amendment-damaging attempt to prosecute Backpage executives for pimping.

Not only did Harris pretend Section 230 immunization didn't exist, she actively fought to have the executives prosecuted for the actions of others. The twisted legal rationale deployed by Harris didn't win over Judge Bowman, who noted Backpage had, at best, republished third-party content. If Harris wanted site owners to be punished for third-party content, she would have to ask the nation's legislators to fix it.....

Backpage Leaders Beat Pimping Charges as Court Affirms Importance of Immunity for Web Publishers of Third-Party Speech

 

Backpage Leaders Beat Pimping Charges as Court Affirms Importance of Immunity for Web Publishers of Third-Party Speech

by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

Reason.com Full Feed / 2016-12-10 07:20

Some good news for folks who value free speech and sex-worker safety and frown on prosecutorial overreach: Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Bowman has sided with the current and former heads of Backpage in their battle against California Attorney General (AG) Kamala Harris.

The defendants had been charged with pimping and conspiracy to commit pimping for running Backpage.com, an online classified-ad site that Harris has called "the world's largest online brothel" due to its ample "adult" and "escort" ads. But as Bowman noted in a preliminary decision in November, federal law specifically prohibits online publishers and publishing-platforms from being held criminally liable for user-generated content, under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). "Congress did not wish to hold liable online publishers for the action of publishing third party speech," wrote Bowman at the time. "Congress has spoken on this matter and it is for Congress, not this court, to revisit."

Judge Bowman seemed set to dismiss the charges in November, but the AG's office asked for more time to prove that defendants—current Backpage Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Carl Ferrer and former heads Michael Lacey and James Larkin—had not simply presided over a publishing platform but actually altered user-posted ads in order to disseminate them more widely or to conceal the illegal nature of their offerings. Harris' office subsequently submitted 74 pages of info and internal Backpage emails to make the state's case. These documents mostly centered on how Backpage handled the aggregation and publishing of Backpage.com content on two affiliated sites, Evil Empire and Big City.

As Bowman summed it up: Prosecutors' "overall theory is that Backpage knew prostitution ads were placed on its main site and, in response, created two additional websites with the goal of encouraging that prostitution through increased ad placement." The state also contended that Backpage "manipulated" content in various ways—shortening headlines, cropping images—when it repackaged Backpage ads on the additional sites.

But after considering the state's new evidence, Bowman concluded in a December 9 decision that "defendants have, at most, republished material that was created by a third party." The judge pointed out that California's declaration in support of the defendants' arrest warrant even stated that EvilEmpire.com ads were "essentially identical" to their Backpage.com counterparts. "This demonstrates republication, not content creation," and "republication is entitled to immunity under the CDA," wrote Bowman.

The judge also blasted the state's assertion that removing possibly illegal content from user posts counted as criminally manipulating them:

Assuming that the People's assertion is true; that the ad went from expressing intent to advertise prostitution to express a desire to 'date,' the People are essentially complaining that Backpage staff scrubbed the original ad, removing any hint of illegality. If this was the alleged content 'manipulation,' the content was modified from being illegal to legal. Surely the AG is not seeking to hold Defendants liable for posting a legal ad; this behavior is exactly the type of 'good Samaritan' behavior that the CDA encourages through the grant of immunity.

Ultimately, the court "finds it difficult to see any illegal behavior outside of the reliance upon the content of speech created by others," wrote Bowman. "The whiff of illegality is detected only when considering the alleged content of the statements contained in the ads. ... Thus, the prosecution depends on consideration of speech provided by a third party."

The court granted defendants demurrer seeking to have the charges against them dismissed, vacated further court dates, and exonerated bond for each defendant. In his conclusion, Bowman once again wrote in boldface type that "Congress has spoken on this matter and it is for Congress, not this Court, to revisit."

--

'Star In a Jar' Fusion Reactor Works, Promises Infinite Energy

 

'Star In a Jar' Fusion Reactor Works, Promises Infinite Energy

Slashdot / 2016-12-10 01:01

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Space.com: For several decades now, scientists from around the world have been pursuing a ridiculously ambitious goal: They hope to develop a nuclear fusion reactor that would generate energy in the same manner as the sun and other stars, but down here on Earth. Incorporated into terrestrial power plants, this "star in a jar" technology would essentially provide Earth with limitless clean energy, forever. And according to new reports out of Europe this week, we just took another big step toward making it happen. In a study published in the latest edition of the journal Nature Communications, researchers confirmed that Germany's Wendelstein 7-X (W7-X) fusion energy device is on track and working as planned. The space-age system, known as a stellerator, generated its first batch of hydrogen plasma when it was first fired up earlier this year. The new tests basically give scientists the green light to proceed to the next stage of the process. It works like this: Unlike a traditional fission reactor, which splits atoms of heavy elements to generate energy, a fusion reactor works by fusing the nuclei of lighter atoms into heavier atoms. The process releases massive amounts of energy and produces no radioactive waste. The "fuel" used in a fusion reactor is simple hydrogen, which can be extracted from water. The W7-X device confines the plasma within magnetic fields generated by superconducting coils cooled down to near absolute zero. The plasma -- at temperatures upwards of 80 million degrees Celsius -- never comes into contact with the walls of the containment chamber. Neat trick, that. David Gates, principal research physicist for the advanced projects division of PPPL, leads the agency's collaborative efforts in regard to the W7-X project. In an email exchange from his offices at Princeton, Gates said the latest tests verify that the W7-X magnetic "cage" is working as planned. "This lays the groundwork for the exciting high-performance plasma operations expected in the near future," Gates said.

US Government Gives $11,000 Back To College Student Three Years After The DEA Took It From Him

 

US Government Gives $11,000 Back To College Student Three Years After The DEA Took It From Him

by Tim Cushing

Techdirt. / 2016-12-09 17:17

Another high-profile asset forfeiture battle has resulted in the government relinquishing its claim on seized cash and returning it to its owner.

In February 2014, DEA agents took $11,000 from Charles Clarke at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. The DEA claimed Clarke's luggage "smelled" like marijuana. It may have been right (Clarke was a recreational marijuana smoker), but it didn't even bother to get a second opinion from a drug dog. Nor did it find any drugs or paraphernalia when it searched Clarke and his baggage.

It did, however, declare the $11,000 in college funds Clarke had saved over five years to be drug money. So, it took the cash from him and sent him on his way.

Normally, the burden of proof falls on the person whose property has been taken. That's how civil asset forfeiture works. The government files a claim against the seized property, cutting the original owner of the property out of the loop as much as possible. Fortunately, the judge presiding over the forfeiture dispute shifted the burden back on law enforcement after finding Clarke to be a credible complainant.

"Frankly, the fella sounds like he's telling the truth," U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman said in a hearing over how much information the U.S. government should be required to turn over to Clarke's lawyers. "He's not changed his story once in all the depositions and testimony that he's given even under the threat of perjury."

Bertelsman also ordered the government to show proof that the seized money was the result of criminal activity. This was obviously going to be a problem for the government, considering all it had to work with was some luggage that carried a hint of marijuana odor. That, and Clarke's cash, which it was in no hurry to give up, especially since it had to split the take thirteen ways.

While no further details have been released, it's probably safe to assume the government never came up with the proof Bertelsman was looking for. The Institute for Justice -- which represented Clarke in this case -- is reporting that the government is returning the seized cash to the college student.

"The United States government has agreed to give Charles Clarke back every penny of the $11,000 it seized from him at the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport in February 2014, plus interest. Charles is very pleased that he will get his life savings back and that the whole ordeal is now behind him."

All it would take to combat many questionable seizures would be a shift in the burden of proof. The process makes it almost impossible for those whose property has been seized to mount a successful attempt to reclaim it. The filing of cases as "Gov't v. Property" allows the seizing agency to run unopposed (as it were), since the seized property can't speak for itself and the property owner is tied up in bureaucratic paperwork with strict time limits that is wholly reliant on the seizing agency properly notifying seizure victims of the whereabouts of their cash, etc.

If the government can't come up with criminal charges, it very likely cannot come up with proof the money is tied to illegal activity. But too few courts are willing to shift the burden of proof, leaving the government to indulge in its perverted incentives.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

--

The Dangerous Holiday-Suicide Myth That Won't End - The Atlantic

November and December are actually the months with the fewest suicides. I post this not to diminish people posting suicide numbers but to remind people to be kind and pay attention to your friends and family year round. Depression and suicide are year round issues not just holiday issues.



The Dangerous Holiday-Suicide Myth That Won't End - The Atlantic

A common type of Internet story this time of year, other than the ones about how to bake holiday cookies and how to avoid gaining weight from said holiday cookies, is the one about how to handle holiday stress. You know, the existential crises brought on by solitude, or forced closeness, or whatever personal demons snow+presents+relatives+red cups summon. A common kicker for these studies of seasonal bleakness? “No wonder suicides spike around the holidays.”

It can be good to remind readers that, though most people feel merry during December, it’s also normal to get depressed during the holidays. What’s terrible and dangerous, though, is telling people—falsely—that suicides spike around this time.

According to the CDC, November and December are the months with the fewest suicides.......

Did Democrats Learn Anything From Their Attack on the Filibuster?

 

Did Democrats Learn Anything From Their Attack on the Filibuster?

by David Harsanyi

Reason.com Full Feed / 2016-12-08 23:03

I won't lie. After reading the CNN piece titled "Senate Dems, powerless to stop Trump nominees, regret 'nuclear option' power play," I experienced some deeply satisfying schadenfreude. Feel free to keep President Barack Obama, Sen. Harry Reid and those who implored Senate Democrats to blow up the filibuster a few years ago in your thoughts as President-elect Donald Trump names his Cabinet and judges. But be sure to remember how recklessness begets recklessness in Washington, D.C.

"I do regret that," Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware, a Democrat who voted to weaken the filibuster three years ago, tells CNN. "I frankly think many of us will regret that in this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump, potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down nominees."

It always was a terrific speed bump, senator. One of the reasons we value tradition, norms and process is that we don't know what the future holds. But, you'll note, these Democrats don't regret their vote for majoritarianism or power grabs. They regret that Trump (and it would be the same for Mitt Romney or any moderate Republican, for that matter) will now be able to operate under the rules they set for themselves.

It's worth remembering that Democrats didn't used a parliamentary procedure to change the rules so that federal judicial nominees and executive-office appointments can move to confirmation votes with a simple majority for some grand ideological purpose. They did it for short-term political gains that no one will remember. Does any Democrat believe helping Obama name some left-wing populists to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (which didn't even exist until 2011) and the National Labor Relations Board was worth it?........

German Intel chief: Russia is trying to 'destabilize' the country

 

German Intel chief: Russia is trying to 'destabilize' the country

Engadget Full RSS Feed / 2016-12-08 17:39

This is big: unprecedented, stark warning by Germany's BfV against aggressive Russian influence ops, false flags, APT28, goals—full text: pic.twitter.com/2H8RCKYZbW

— Thomas Rid (@RidT) December 8, 2016

In recent months, Germany has seen an "aggressive and increased cyber spying and cyber operations that could potentially endanger German government officials, members of parliament and employees of democratic parties," Maaßen said in his statement. This has been accompanied by an "enormous use of financial resources" to spread "disinformation" and sow discord both within the country and the wider EU

The BfV also reports that it has observed a significant jump in the activities of ATP 28, a Russian hacker group better known as Strontrium ("Fancy Bear"), which has been linked to the intrusion into the American Democratic National Convention earlier this year. What's more, the intelligence agency notes that so-called "false flag" operations conducted by this group have consistently pinned the blame on domestic activist organizations.

Taken together, the BfV has all but yelled "J'accuse!" (but, you know, in German) at Russia's intelligence apparatus. The BfV claims that the cyber-campaign aims to rile up extremist groups and weaken voter trust in the German government, just like it did in America. All, reportedly, performed in an effort to reduce the degree of economic sanctions currently being levied against Russia and "to influence the federal election next year," Maaßen wrote.

--

Georgia Accuses Homeland Security Of Attempting To Hack State's Election Database

 

Georgia Accuses Homeland Security Of Attempting To Hack State's Election Database

by Tyler Durden

Zero Hedge / 2016-12-08 16:44

Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp is anxiously wondering, as are we, why someone with a Department Of Homeland Security IP address would try to hack into his State's voter registration database.  Even though DHS offered cyber security help to states prior to the election, the Wall Street Journal notes that Georgia was one of the states that specifically denied assistance.

The secretary of state of Georgia is asking the Department of Homeland Security to explain what appears to be an attempted breach of the state's voter registration database by someone in the federal government.

 

In a letter to Department of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson dated Thursday, Georgia's Secretary of State Brian Kemp said the state had discovered an unsuccessful attempt to breach the firewall of state computer systems. That attempt was linked to an IP address associated with DHS, he said.

 

"At no time has my office agreed to or permitted DHS to conduct penetration testing or security scans of our network," wrote Mr. Kemp, a Republican. "Moreover, your department has not contacted my office since this unsuccessful incident to alert us of any security event that would require testing or scanning of our network."

 

The alleged attempted intrusion by the federal government on a state computer system responsible for election security was detected by a third-party security firm working for the state of Georgia. The attempt was unsuccessful, according to the state. The computers also house information about company incorporations.

According to a letter written by Kemp to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, the attempted intrusion occurred 1 week after the election on November 15, 2016 at 8:43AM and came from an IP address associated with DHS (216.81.81.80). 

 

Of course, since the hacking a state's election database it technically illegal, even for DHS, Kemp had some fairly pointed questions for Johnson on who authorized the scan and how many other states were scanned without authorization. 

 

Meanwhile, the potential hacking followed threats from Jeh Johnson leading up to election day to declare election systems "critical infrastructure" which would have given the federal government more authority over state databases. 

The Department of Homeland Security made a major push in advance of November's elections to help states secure election systems against possible hacking, as fears of foreign interference in the U.S. election process reached a fever pitch in the months leading up to Election Day.

 

The department also considered declaring election systems "critical infrastructure," which would have given the federal government additional authority to protect the systems. DHS didn't take that step, however, as many states expressed concern about additional federal authority over their election systems and said the constitution provided states the right to run their own elections.

 

As a result of some of the concerns, the department clarified that assistance on election-related security matters was voluntary and encouraged states to take advantage of DHS resources and expertise to help secure state election systems.

 

"DHS assistance is strictly voluntary and does not entail regulation, binding directives, and is not offered to supersede state and local control over the process," Mr. Johnson, the DHS chief, said in September.

 

Georgia was one of the states that had declined the federal government's assistance for election security, citing state sovereignty. "Right now, we're just demanding answers," said David Dove, a top aide to the Georgia secretary of state. "My boss, Secretary Kemp, has been a very vocal critic of the Department of Homeland Security declaring election systems critical infrastructure."

After all the talk about Russian hackers, wouldn't it be just perfect if it turns out that the Obama administration was the only group to actually attempt to illegally hack into a state election database?  That said, we won't hold our breath waiting for Jill Stein and disaffected Hillary supporters to express their outrage over this incident.

 

Brian Kemp's full letter can be viewed below:

--

Adam Schiff to Tucker Carlson: 'You're Carrying Water for the Kremlin'

 

Adam Schiff to Tucker Carlson: 'You're Carrying Water for the Kremlin'

by Matt Welch

Reason.com Full Feed / 2016-12-08 12:24

As Ed Krayewski pointed out earlier, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) yesterday accused a Yahoo News anchor of being "biased" about Russia after she told him (at his demand) that she immigrated to the United States from the former Soviet republic of Moldova. Sadly, that wasn't the only instance of a congressman accusing a journalist of possible dual loyalty over the Russia issue even yesterday.

From the opposite direction of the great Putin divide, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) went further, if a bit more jokily, on Fox News host Tucker Carlson. After a contested, interruption-heavy exchange with Carlson about whether Democrats had proof that Putin knowingly hacked John Podesta's emails, Schiff said "You're carrying water for the Kremlin....You're going to have to move your show to RT." Watch:

I lean much closer to Schiff than Rohrabacher when it comes to general hostility toward Vladimir Putin, but I'm squarely on Team Tucker (and Bianna!) here. Fact-free accusations of bias due to loyalty or antipathy to foreign governments are crude coming from anybody, let alone influential congressmen. If there are indeed Russians (or Moldovans) hiding under our national bed, it's gonna take more to prove that case than yelling booga booga.

--

Shared via Inoreader

Sent from my iPad

Saudi Journalist Banned From Media After Criticizing Trump

 Why the First Amendment is important in the US.....we never want this to happen.

Saudi Journalist Banned From Media After Criticizing Trump

by Tyler Durden

Zero Hedge / 2016-12-08 01:19

Submitted by MiddleEastEye.net via TheAntiMedia.org,

Saudi authorities banned journalist Jamal Khashoggi from writing in newspapers, appearing on TV and attending conferences, the Alkhalij Aljadid reported in Arabic.

This came after Khashoggi's remarks during a presentation he made at a Washington think-tank on 10 November in which he was critical of Donald Trump's ascension to the US presidency.

Two weeks ago, an official Saudi source was cited by the Saudi News Agency as saying that Khashoggi did not represent the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in his interviews or statements.

#Saudi regime journalist, Jamal Khashoggi banned by the government from speaking for criticizing Donald Trump https://t.co/BijTT9T4J2

— Jim Early (@mkearley2008) November 26, 2016

"The author Jamal Khashoggi does not represent the government of Saudi Arabia or its positions at any level, and … his opinions only represent his personal views not that of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," said a ministry source quoted by the Saudi Press Agency.

The official Saudi position on Trump's election was perhaps more accurately reflected by a former Saudi diplomat in mid-November who told the Washington Post: "Certainly, we are not expecting Mr Trump to be worse than Mr Obama was," said Abdullah al-Shamri. Most members of the royal family, he said, "are happy with the result. We are closer to Republicans psychologically."......

Law Firm That Sued 20-Year-Old Crash Victim Over Negative Review Now Owes $26,831 In Legal Fees

Law Firm That Sued 20-Year-Old Crash Victim Over Negative Review Now Owes $26,831 In Legal Fees:

After being insulted online by a 20-year-old student with back injuries resulting from a collision with a drunk driver, the Khuu law firm of Houston, Texas, claimed it "had no choice" but to burn its already-questionable reputation to the ground file a $100,000+ defamation lawsuit.



Like many other entities, the Khuu law firm felt the best response to a negative review was to get litigious. Unlike many other entities, the Khuu Law firm presumably employed actual lawyers with actual knowledge of actual laws. Presumably. If so, it overrode this knowledge to engage in litigation featuring the internet's favorite tort: "Yelp review I didn't like."



According to Lan Cai -- the student who had the misfortune of initiating contact with Khuu -- a representative from the office showed up at her house unannounced and questioned her while she was still in her underwear. Shortly after making a bad first impression, the company made a bad second impression by ghosting its new client. Lawyers at the firm only seemed interested in engaging with Cai when they had a lawsuit to serve.



Backlash ensued and the Popehat Signal was (unofficially) lit. Houston attorney Michael Fleming picked up Lan Cai's case pro bono and has now obtained an anti-SLAPP judgment in favor of his client. Joe Mullin of Ars Technica reports:

Fleming filed a motion arguing that, first and foremost, Cai's social media complaints were true. Second, she couldn't do much to damage the reputation of a firm that already had multiple poor reviews. He argued the lawsuit was a clear SLAPP (strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). Like many states, Texas has a law allowing for SLAPP suits to be thrown out at early stages of litigation.



Ultimately, the judge agreed with Fleming, ordering [PDF] the Khuu firm to pay $26,831.55 in attorneys' fees.

The news of the firm's loss has resulted in a second wave of one-star reviews at Yelp -- one of those side effects litigious entities fail to consider before lunging forward with "might makes right" legal bullying. At this point, the Khuu law office is best known for:



(a) mistreating a potential client with a broken back, and



(b) losing a lawsuit.



Neither of these is going to help it attract new customers. If it had just left it alone, its reputation -- while never stellar -- wouldn't have been destroyed completely.

I wish a certain (tv) star would think before he tweets

 

I wish a certain (tv) star would think before he tweets

by thonyc

The Renaissance Mathematicus / 2016-12-07 05:18

On a couple of occasions I have blogged about the publically displayed history of science ignorance of mega-star science entertainer Neil deGrasse Tyson (NdGT). On Sunday I stumbled over one his tweets, which stridently proclaimed:

 

If you wished upon that first Star you saw tonight in twilight,

then it will not likely come true. You wished on planet Venus

Venus is always brighter than all other planets or stars as seen from Earth. The second brightest object on the image is Jupiter
Source: Wikimedia Commons

My first reaction was that this tweet was very mean spirited and to ask myself what NdGT's intention was in tweeting it. Then as a historian of astronomy I replied to this tweet by pointing out that from antiquity up to the beginning of the eighteenth century all illuminated celestial bodies – stars, comets, planets – were referred to as stars and so one would still be wishing upon a star. Now NdGT has a trillion sycophants followers, so the last thing I expected was a response from the great man himself to my tweet. Imagine my surprise when I got just that:

 

The 7 "planetes" (Greek for "wanderer") were distinct from stars:

Sun Moon Mercury Venus Mars Jupiter Saturn.

 

Slam -Bam! A killer etymological put down or at least I assume that was what NdGT thought he had achieved. Unfortunately he had just ridden himself deeper into the mire. If we actually consult an etymological dictionary on the origins of the term planet we discover the following:

Planet (n): late Old English planete, from Old French planete (Modern French planète), from Late Latin planeta, from Greek planetes, from (asteres) planetai "wandering (stars)," from planasthai "to wander…

Oh dear, planet doesn't mean wanderer in the original Greek; it means wandering star! The Greeks did indeed differentiate between fixed stars, our stars, wandering stars, the seven planets and hairy stars (I've always liked that one) the comets, but, and this is the decisive point, they are all stars, as I stated in the first place. Whether NdGT's etymological error was out of ignorance or a result of deliberate quote mining I can't say.

NdGT might have saved himself some embarrassment if he had paused for a moment to consider the etymology of astronomy, the mother discipline of his own profession, astrophysics. Astronomy is also derived from ancient Greek, as was astrology and as I pointed out in another post the two terms were, from their origin up till the late seventeenth century, synonyms. Let's just check out those etymologies shall we.

Astronomy (n): c. 1200, from Old French astrenomie, from Latin astronomia, from Greek astronomia, literally "star arrangement," from astron "star"

Astrology (n): late 14c., from Latin astrologia "astronomy, the science of the heavenly bodies," from Greek astrologia "telling of the stars," from astron "star"

So astrologia, which is the older of the two terms, means the science of the heavenly bodies, which of course includes the planets. Astronmia naturally includes the planets too, as stars.

What evidence can I bring forth that this was still the case in the Early Modern Period? I have no lesser witness than that well-known Elizabethan playwright and poet Will Shakespeare. In his tragedy Romeo and Juliet he refers to the fact that their doom has been predetermined by their astrological fate. Now an astrological horoscope determines the position of the planets along the elliptic, the apparent path of the sun around the earth, so astrology is very much planetary. So how does the good bard describe the astrological doom of his two young lovers?

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes,

A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life

Note Romeo and Juliet are star-crossed, although it is the planets that determine their fate. In fact the expression ones fate is written in the stars is still very much used today in the English language.

I do have a last sad note for NdGT concerning his original tweet. Most people probably associate the expression 'to wish upon a star' with the pop song When You Wish Upon a Star originally from the Walt Disney film Pinocchio from 1940, which has been covered by many, many artists. However the tradition is much older and in fact goes back at least to the ancient Romans. The tradition says that if you make a wish when you see the first star of the evening then that wish will come true. Now the first star of the evening is 'the evening star' also known as the planet Venus and in fact the tradition derives from the Roman worship of Venus their goddess of love, so if you did make a wish upon seeing Venus, as NdGT claimed in his original tweet, then you would be doing exactly the right thing to have your wish come true. You are just offering up a prayer to the divine Venus.

The Birth of Venus, by Sandro Botticelli c. 1485–1486
Source: Wikimedia Commons

The saddest aspect of this brief collision on Twitter is just how many of NdGT's sycophants followers retweeted and/or liked his etymology of the term planet tweet thinking he had brilliantly seen of the bothersome history of astronomy troll. I wouldn't mind him spouting history of science crap if he was some brain damaged loony with 15 followers on Twitter but unfortunately he is the most well-known and influential English language science communicator in the world and his false utterances mislead and misinform a lot of trusting people.

 

 

 

--

A Cheaper, Simpler Obamacare Plan - Bloomberg View

A Cheaper, Simpler Obamacare Plan - Bloomberg View

As a frequent critic of Obamacare, I'm often asked, "Well, how would you solve the problem? Huh?" The implication is that if I don't have a solution, I should shut up and endorse the one Democrats provided.

This is not sound policy thinking. As I am fond of saying, "The existence of a problem does not therefore imply the existence of a solution." It is not inevitably true that there is some policy solution that would be better than the status quo, even if we really dislike the status quo. For example, Russia getting all frisky in Ukraine makes me nervous as hell. I would like President Barack Obama to make it stop. That doesn't mean that Obama can make it stop. It is quite possible that any strenuous attempt to make it stop would simply imbue the Russian government with even more theatrical military ambitions.

As it happens, however, I did have an alternative plan for the Affordable Care Act, one that I was very fond of. It preserved the basic market mechanisms in health care while protecting people from catastrophic risks. It was so simple it could be explained in a couple of sentences. And it wouldn't cost that much. Ready? Here we go: The government picks up 100 percent of health-care costs above 15 to 20 percent of adjusted gross income. For people below 150 percent of the poverty line, there's Medicaid, which picks up basically all your costs. Hard to game, preserves consumer incentives to shop for prices and keeps people out of bankruptcy....

Tucker Carlson aims at elites - Business Insider

Tucker Carlson aims at elites - Business Insider

It was the 7 p.m. hour on Fox News and famed New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof found himself in the hot seat, forced to defend a column he had authored, in part, about President-elect Donald Trump’s supporters.

“I guess what I’m here for is empathy,” host Tucker Carlson told Kristof, noting the Times journalist had an extensive background traveling to some of the most troubled places on the globe.

“I’ve never read a column by you that suggests the people in those places — who support dictators oftentimes — are racists or bad people,” Carlson said, as he placed a printed copy of the column on the studio’s glass desk. “You would never write that about a poor person in the third world. But you’re implying that about your fellow Americans.”

Kristof rejected Carlson’s characterization of his work, but the newly minted Fox News primetime host, who previously hosted shows on CNN and MSNBC, calmly pressed forward.....

Progress on Poverty

http://humanprogress.org/blog/year-of-the-1-percent?utm_content=buffer4397b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The Economist's graph reminded me of another graph, which also shows two lines that eventually cross but tells a very different story. Despite population growth, there are fewer people living in extreme poverty today than ever before:

How can both graphs be accurate? Poverty can decline even as inequality rises, as long as the total amount of wealth in the world is growing. To ignore this is to fall prey to the "fixed pie fallacy." Throughout most of human history, global wealth hardly changed. But thanks to trade and industrialization, wealth has skyrocketed since the 1900s and continues to climb. At the same time, technological advances have also increased human wellbeing in ways not captured by looking at GDP alone...... 

Russia's Unreliable Aircraft Carrier Just Lost Another Plane

 

Russia's Unreliable Aircraft Carrier Just Lost Another Plane

by Terrell Jermaine Starr on Foxtrot Alpha, shared by Eve Peyser to Gizmodo

Gizmodo / 2016-12-05 19:22

The Admiral Kuznetsov transits the English Channel back in October. Photo credit: Getty Images

Russia's aircraft carrier off the coast of Syria is continuing a fine tradition of being more of a floating joke than an actual warship. Yet another Russian Navy Su-33 fighter jet crashed in the Mediterranean Sea attempting to land on the gross as hell Admiral Kuznetsov on Saturday.

The crash is the second Russian carrier-launched jet to end up in the drink in just three weeks, according to Aviationist. The cause of the incident reportedly was due to a snap of the arresting cable on the carrier, which is normally positioned across the decks of air carriers to slow jets landing at high rates of speed.

The pilot on the Su-33 was able to eject from the aircraft and was later saved by a search-and-rescue team. On November 14th, a MiG-29K crashed while trying to land on the aging Kuznetsov. That pilot also was able to eject from his plane and was later saved by a rescue team, according to the New York Times.

In case you haven't heard, the Admiral Kuznetsov is a broken down, black smoke exhausting piece of shit that should have been decommissioned years ago. It's so broken down that it sails with a tug that can pull it away in case it breaks down—which it does a lot.

The plumbing is so bad many of the toilets cannot be used. Seriously. It is the hooptie of the sea.

The Russian military stationed the the Admiral Kuznetsov off the coast of Syria to demonstrate its show of force in the region. The problem, however, is that the carrier wasn't designed for the kinds of missions for which it is being used.

"This carrier was never designed for projecting power on shore," said Pavel K. Baev, who studies Russian military reform at the Peace Research Institute Oslo, according to The Washington Post. "The fact of the military matter is that this deployment adds nothing, just absolutely nothing to the capabilities" that Russia has on the ground in Syria.

It doesn't even have a catapult system that is common with modern aircraft carriers. According to Popular Mechanics, the ship has had a number of mechanical issues. In 2009, its electrical system caught fire, leaving one crewman dead; in 2012, it had to be tugged away because it broke down in the Bay of Biscay.

Naval experts have said there is no practical reason for the Admiral Kuznetsov to be in operation, other than to prove a maritime might it really doesn't have. Foreign Policy wondered in September if it could even stay afloat during its mission off the coast of Syria.

If you do a quick Google search on the Kuznetsov, you'll find as plenty of articles clowning its mechanical issues. Which isn't great for Russia, a nation that is trying to prove it can compete with the U.S.military.

The recent incidents on the Admiral Kuznetsov are a huge public relations blow to the Russian military. Moreover, it reveals that Russia doesn't really care about the safety of its servicemen and women. Russia news agency TASS quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov essentially blowing off the latest crash incident.

"The talk, in the first place, is about the fact that the pilot has remained alive," Peskov said. Interestingly enough, that is what most people who drive beaters say about about their rides.

Ivory Tower Economist Tries To School Dilbert's Scott Adams On Trade... Fails

 With whom do you agree?

Ivory Tower Economist Tries To School Dilbert's Scott Adams On Trade... Fails

by Tyler Durden

Zero Hedge / 2016-12-05 18:50

Submitted by Thad Beversdorf via FirstRebuttal.com,

Today Donald J. Boudreaux, who is Professor of Economics and Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, wrote an open letter to Dilbert creator Scott Adams.  The letter was a rebuttal to Scott disagreeing with Michigan Rep Justin Amash about Trump's trade policy.

Justin Amash had tweeted out that tariffs will hurt the consumer in higher prices.  Scott retorted that the tariffs will not be applied because the threat of applying a tariff on firms who chase cheap foreign labor but then sell that production back to the US consumer they just laid off will disincentivize the firms from leaving in the first place.  It was then that Mr. Boudreaux jumped in, stating unequivocally that Scott is wrong and Justin is right.

Boudreaux argues that while he agrees the tariff would actually not be applied it would stifle competition and thus consumers would pay a higher price.  Boudreaux seems to imply that low consumer prices are a top priority of trade policy.  Below is the main argument within Boudreaux's open letter to Scott Adams.

Rep. Amash is right and you are wrong.  Although no formal tax collection is triggered if Mr. Trump's threats prevent all offshoring, Trump's tariff – by restricting competition – would artificially reduce outputs and raise prices.  American consumers would pay unnecessarily higher prices, an outcome inseparable from the very purpose of the tariff.  That consumers pay these extra, unnecessary amounts to domestic producers rather than to domestic customs agents is irrelevant: the tariff forces all consumers of these products to pay extra, unnecessary amounts to some small group of fellow Americans who, rather than earn these higher payments, extract them using threats of state coercion.

Let me explain the logical fallacies that Mr. Boudreaux fails to recognize in his chivalrous attempt to defend Rep Amash and our existing international trade agreements (note there is nothing free trade about these agreements).

1. Boudreaux's entire argument is based on an unsubstantiated notion that offsetting the labor cost savings from cheap foreign labor with a tariff somehow limits competition.  This is equivalent to saying American production limits competition.    There are currently 28.5 million private firms producing in the US, more than ever before.  I've never seen any data to substantiate that American production limits competition. In fact, I find it quite an absurd proposition.  Unless Boudreaux can substantiate that claim, it simply cannot be accepted.  And if the basis of his argument is unsound then the rest of it is invalid.
2. Secondly is the implication that US firms chase cheap foreign labor so that they can pass those cost savings onto the consumer.  Price models are a function of what the market will bear, not cost.  The point of the cost savings is to drive profits, profits which over the past 5 years are paid directly to shareholders.  Dividends have almost no money multiplier effect.  And so reallocating labor income, which has the highest money multiplier effect, to profit is a net economic value destroyer not creator.
3. Even if consumers paid a higher price as a result of the tariff, which we know isn't true based on points 1 & 2 above, the offset of that is they would be paying a higher price with labor income earned as opposed to credit or welfare.  Meaning if I can keep my job, I'm ok paying a slightly higher price because while I might be able to buy less things I can still support my family without private or public debt.  And so to suggest the top objective of trade or any economic policy should be getting the lowest possible price is another absurd proposition.
4. Boudreaux suggests the tariff is state coercion yet fails to recognize the tariff is a reaction to a state intervention of free markets i.e. international trade agreements that allow labor cost arbitrage to exist without the naturally higher risks of the undeveloped nations that offer the cheaper labor (the cheap labor and higher risk being a function of the same underdeveloped societal infrastructure).  Higher return means higher risk.  Lower labor cost means higher ROI.  Higher ROI means higher risk.  But through state coercion, the higher risk is negated leaving just the higher ROI.  This is not free market.  This is state intervention.  The tariff is being used to level the playing field so to speak.

Mr. Boudreaux, while I appreciate your zeal for trade agreements, I am slightly surprised as to the naivety of your argument.  You haven't given the readers enough credit.  Something you PhD economists are going to be facing much more of in the coming years.  There is a movement to educate and draw in the American public to such economic discussions.  We will be better prepared to understand your theoretical, applicable and logical fallacies.  You should take note, and be better prepared next time.

--

Welcome to Nordstrom, Can I Interest You in This Fancy Rock?

 

Welcome to Nordstrom, Can I Interest You in This Fancy Rock?

by Bryan Menegus

Gizmodo / 2016-12-05 17:13

The American home is replete with all manner of overpriced baubles and trinkets. But is your idlic suburban ranch house truly complete with an $85 rock in a bespoke leather pouch? Nordstrom thinks not.

"Medium Leather Wrapped Stone," as it's referred to on the Nordstrom store, is made by artist Peter Maxwell out of "smooth Los Angeles-area stone"—a city I had previously not associated with quarries. The 115-year-old retail chain seems, like you, not to know what exactly it is they're selling. Medium Leather Wrapped Stone's product description begins with a series of questions, almost as though it's talking you out of buying one. "A paperweight? A conversation piece? A work of art?" it probes before ultimately concluding that the function and purpose of a rock in a bag is "up to you."

$85 is a lot to pay for a total mystery. Thankfully, a smaller version exists for the reduced price of $65. Rocks come in sizes!

Far better than a stone in a sock made of animal skin is the comments made by customers on the product's page. "Have to say that this is truly a beautiful product, but I had to send it back because there aren't any doggone instructions. I don't even know how to turn the flippin thing on," FredDringus wrote, giving Medium Leather Wrapped Stone a meager three stars. "It's a little pricey," PatIsInnocent wrote to describe his transcendent purchase, "but the sales lady told me the rock was made by hand. That's got to be difficult."

Tell me about it PatIsInnocent. Maybe someday I too will be able to afford nice things.

[Racked]

--

Time to End Discrimination Against Gays?

 

Time to End Discrimination Against Gays?

by Steve Chapman

Reason.com Full Feed / 2016-12-04 23:05

On gay rights, America has come a great distance in a short time. Remember the days, not so long ago, that gays stayed in the closet, sodomy was a crime, same-sex marriage was banned and people could be fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation?

Actually, you don't have to try to remember that last. It's still the case in 28 states, including Mike Pence's Indiana, that holding hands with your same-sex partner in public can mean losing your livelihood. A bigoted boss can cashier a good employee for loving someone of the wrong gender.

This unprotected status is an anomaly under the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which forbids employment discrimination on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." African-Americans and other racial minorities are protected, Catholics and Muslims are protected, women are protected and immigrants are protected. Gays are not.......

Indian Prime Minister's Shake Down of Private Wealth - Reason.com

Indian Prime Minister's Shake Down of Private Wealth - Reason.com

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stunned his country earlier this month when, out of the blue, he declared 85 percent of the nation's currency notes null and ironypoisoning via Foter.com / CC BY-SAvoid.

India's two highest rupee notes — Rs. 500 ($7.50) and Rs. 1,000 ($15) — will no longer be legal tender, and will be replaced with redesigned Rs. 500 notes and new Rs. 2,000 bills. Indians can swap a relatively small number of old bills for new ones by the end of the year, but only at designated banks and with proof of ID. Anyone trying to swap large sums of cash that they can't legally account for will be subject to investigation and legal action. And all the unswapped currency will stay with the government, a massive transfer of wealth from private citizens to the state/

Modi's fans see this as an audacious move to smoke out untaxed "black money" from India's informal economy, which constitutes anywhere from 25 to 40 percent of the nation's GDP. But in reality, this demonetization scheme is the equivalent of killing the patient to cure a headache. And it marks an end to India's three-decade flirtation with market liberalization.......

Court Allows IRS to Order Bitcoin Exchange Coinbase to Give Up Their Customers' Identities

 What happened to reasonable suspicion and the 4th Amendment? 

Court Allows IRS to Order Bitcoin Exchange Coinbase to Give Up Their Customers' Identities

by Brian Doherty

Reason.com Full Feed / 2016-12-02 20:19

Bad news for patriotic Americans who want to keep their bitcoin business to themselves this week from the Department of Justice:

A federal court in the Northern District of California entered an order today authorizing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to serve a John Doe summons on Coinbase Inc., seeking information about U.S. taxpayers who conducted transactions in a convertible virtual currency during the years 2013 to 2015. The IRS is seeking the records of Americans who engaged in business with or through Coinbase, a virtual currency exchanger headquartered in San Francisco, California.

"As the use of virtual currencies has grown exponentially, some have raised questions about tax compliance," said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo, head of the Justice Department's Tax Division. "Tools like the John Doe summons authorized today send the clear message to U.S. taxpayers that whatever form of currency they use – bitcoin or traditional dollars and cents – we will work to ensure that they are fully reporting their income and paying their fair share of taxes."....

The court's order grants the IRS permission to serve what is known as a "John Doe" summons on Coinbase. There is no allegation in this suit that Coinbase has engaged in any wrongdoing in connection with its virtual currency exchange business. Rather, the IRS uses John Doe summonses to obtain information about possible violations of internal revenue laws by individuals whose identities are unknown. This John Doe summons directs Coinbase to produce records identifying U.S. taxpayers who have used its services, along with other documents relating to their virtual currency transactions.

The actual order from U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The actual summons.

As Ars Technica quoted from that summons, the government wants:

Account/wallet/vault registration records for each account/wallet/vault owned or controlled by the user during the period stated above including, but not limited to, complete user profile, history of changes to user profile from account inception, complete user preferences, complete user security settings and history (including confirmed devices and account activity), complete user payment methods, and any other information related to the funding sources for the account/wallet/vault, regardless of date.

A Coinbase spokesman via email said earlier this week when the DOJ announcement was issued:

Although Coinbase's general practice is to cooperate with properly targeted law enforcement inquiries, we are extremely concerned with the indiscriminate breadth of the government's request. Our customers' privacy rights are important to us and our legal team is in the process of examining the government's petition. In its current form, we will oppose the government's petition in court.....

We are aware of, and expected, the Court's ex parte order today. We look forward to opposing the DOJ's request in court after Coinbase is served with a subpoena. As we previously stated, we remain concerned with our U.S. customers' legitimate privacy rights in the face of the government's sweeping request.

Jim Harper at Cato noted when the news of the summons broke:

Equally shocking is the weak foundation for making this demand. In a declaration submitted to the court, an IRS agent recounts having learned of tax evasion on the part of one Bitcoin user and two companies. On this basis, he and the IRS claim "a reasonable basis for believing" that all U.S. Coinbase users "may fail or may have failed to comply" with the internal revenue laws.

If that evidence is enough to create a reasonable basis to believe that all Bitcoin users evade taxes, the IRS is entitled to access the records of everyone who uses paper money.

Anecdotes and online bragodaccio about tax avoidance are not a reasonable basis to believe that all Coinbase users are tax cheats whose financial lives should be opened to IRS investigators and the hackers looking over their shoulders. There must be some specific information about particular users, or else the IRS is seeking a general warrant, which the Fourth Amendment denies it the power to do.

Unfortunately, the District Court disagreed with Harper's sensible Fourth Amendment view.

My reporting from back in April 2014 when the IRS first declared that bitcoin is property whose sale creates potential tax liabilities, setting the inevitable stage for something like this. As I wrote then, if you keep your bitcoin use totally in the digital alt-coin world, very hard for the taxman to find you. But as soon as you try to interface with turning them into U.S. currency, certainly through a trying-to-be legitimate business, things will get trickier. (Some thoughts from Bitcoin expert Andreas Antonopoulos on the intersection of bitcoin and "know your customer" banking regs.)

Robert W. Wood at Forbes pretty much advises Bitcoin sellers to come clean if they haven't already before the IRS nabs them.

As far as I've been able to ascertain, backed up by experts in the bitcoin exchange space I spoke to, this is the first time the government has tried this particular summons trick on an exchange to root out possible bitcoin tax scofflaws.

--

Americans Not In The Labor Force Soar To Record 95.1 Million: Jump By 446,000 In One Month

 

Americans Not In The Labor Force Soar To Record 95.1 Million: Jump By 446,000 In One Month

by Tyler Durden

Zero Hedge / 2016-12-02 08:08

So much for that much anticipated rebound in the participation rate.

After it had managed to post a modest increase in the early part of the year, hitting the highest level in one year in March at 63%, the disenchantment with working has returned, and the labor force participation rate had flatlined for the next few month, ultimately dropping in November to 62.7%, just shy of its 35 year low of 62.4% hit last October. This can be seen in the surge of Americans who are no longer in the labor force, who spiked by 446,000 in November, hitting an all time high of 95.1 million.

As a result of this the US labor force shrank by 226,000 to 159,486K, down from 159,712K a month ago, and helped the unemployment rate tumble to 4.6%, the lowest level since August 2007.

Adding the number of unemployed workers to the people not in the labor force, there are now over 102.5 million Americans who are either unemployment or no longer looking for work.

--

Saudi Prince Calls for End of Ban on Women Drivers

Saudi Prince Calls for End of Ban on Women Drivers

A Saudi prince implored his country on Wednesday to dump the kingdom's longstanding ban on women drivers, calling it "unjust" and an "infringement on a woman's right."

Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world that prohibits women drivers.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal took to Twitter to say "Stop the debate: Time for women to drive." He also issued a statement making an economic and social argument in favor of allowing women to get behind the wheel.

© Aziza Yousef drives a car in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Saturday, March 29, 2014, as part of a campaign t... Image: Saudi-women-driving